IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36368 of 2009(M)
1. SARMILA.M. (UPSA) HIGH SCHOOL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR.
4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD.
5. THE HEADMASTER, HIGH SCHOOL
6. THE HEADMASTER, S.M.T. HIGH SCHOOL
7. MINI.T.K., UPSA, HIGH SCHOOL
8. RAIHANATH.K.K. UPSA, HIGH SCHOOL
For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :22/12/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 36368 of 2009-M
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is working as a UPSA in the High School,
Thiruvalayannoor. She had been working there from 1.8.1994. During the
staff fixation 2009-2010 there is a reduction of three posts of UPSA, going
by Ext.P1. She was granted protection as per Ext.P1 and subsequently, by
Ext.P2 she was deployed to the 6th respondent’s school. The petitioner has
already been relieved on 2.11.2009 from the 5th respondent’s school.
2. The petitioner’s contention is that if 1 : 40 ratio is applied, the
petitioner could have been retained in the school. It is also pointed out that
the 4th respondent passed an order on 23.10.2009 directing deployment of
teachers in the school and two additional posts have been sanctioned in the
Upper Primary Section and accordingly, respondents 7 and 8 were
accommodated. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P4 order has been
passed without considering the seniority of the petitioner as UPSA in the
school. The petitioner entered service on 1.8.1994, whereas the 7th
respondent entered service on 2.6.2003 and the 8th respondent entered
service on 5.6.2007. Accordingly, it is contended that junior hands have
wpc 36368/2009 2
been retained ignoring the claim of a senior hand like the petitioner. It is in
these circumstances, the petitioner has filed Ext.P6 appeal before the
Director of Public Instruction. The petitioner seeks for a direction to the
second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P6 within a time frame.
3. Learned Govt. Pleader on instructions, submitted that Ext.P6 has
not been received by the second respondent so far. It is the case of the
petitioner that the petitioner forwarded the same through registered post.
The petitioner will refile Ext.P2 within a period of three weeks and on
receipt of the same, the second respondent will take a decision in
accordance with law therein, after hearing the petitioner and respondents 7
and 8, within a further period of two months. The petitioner will forward a
copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment for compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/